Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters

[Mojooo]

FiF said:

Parking wars BBC 1 tonight featured oneof these stops.

For those who didn't see it quite obvious what was going on.

Bailiffs completely in charge requesting which vehicles were stopped. Police officers lined up requested the stop, leant in through the passenger window then turned and pointed to the bailiffs.

Met should be ashamed.

I imagine the Police do their own checks and then 'pass on' to the bailiffs.

I agree though - it did not feel right that the Police were using their powers like that and then putting the person in a very awkward position.

The only saving grace might be that the ticket was issued by a public body and it had been backed by the court (use of the word warrant) - therefore although the bailiff gets their share at least (arguably) the public body benefits in some way.

[eldar]

Mojooo said:

I imagine the Police do their own checks and then 'pass on' to the bailiffs.

I agree though - it did not feel right that the Police were using their powers like that and then putting the person in a very awkward position.

The only saving grace might be that the ticket was issued by a public body and it had been backed by the court (use of the word warrant) - therefore although the bailiff gets their share at least (arguably) the public body benefits in some way.

The tickets can be issued by any creditor, banks, shopping or loan companies. Not just public bodies.

[Mojooo]

eldar said:

The tickets can be issued by any creditor, banks, shopping or loan companies. Not just public bodies.

It wasn't clear who the bailiff was collecting for on the TV show. - it looked like all the ones they were colelcting for were on behalf of the council.

I would be surprised if the Police were helping (what i will call) 'totally private' parking charges/debts.

AFAIK private debts do not come with 'warrants' either.

[FiF]

XCP said:

Sounds very similar to the police stopping motorists so that vehicle examiners or DOT staff could speak to the drivers.

We have already covered that in the thread.

A couple trying to justify this were using these examples as possibilities to explain that perhaps it was just the bailiffs tagging onto a police operation. Again as before vosa and DOT would be checking for proper offences.

If you'd seen it then it was rather clear what it was. A wholly targeted bailiff operation with the Met simply used because they needed someone with the powers to request a vehicle to stop.

I have no issues with debtors being chased. But most of this thread has been about the argument without knowing how the Met were involved and it was all guess work.

Until now. Not acceptable.

[jbsportstech]

Mojooo said:

It wasn't clear who the bailiff was collecting for on the TV show. - it looked like all the ones they were colelcting for were on behalf of the council.

I would be surprised if the Police were helping (what i will call) 'totally private' parking charges/debts.

AFAIK private debts do not come with 'warrants' either.

BBC parking wars

It was enforcement of council issued parking tickets, not clear who's anpr was being used police for enforcement but met were defo stopping cars for the although iam sure they would say they r there to prevent breach of the peace.

Usual arrogant bailiffs collecting 400-500 a time for a £60 parking fine of which the council wil get £100 tops.

Stopped a gut in a work van and he wouldn't give in so they clamped him but van not reg to him plus I would say the van is tool of the trade and my understanding is they can't sieze when bully boy crap didn't work she gave in and released his van as she clearly didn't have the power to sieze but tried it anyway.

Ultimate irony was the enforcement and met police van parked on a bend on double yellows blocking the pavement.,

Very bad taste the met getting involved.

Edited by jbsportstech on Friday 18th April 07:41

[9mm]

So, if the Police stop the car and have no interest in it or the driver, is there anything to stop the driver simply refusing to engage with the bailiff and driving off?

[FiF]

On the show the bailiff in charge of the operation frequently said that if they didn't pay then the vehicle would be seized, there was no other option. While one woman was sat in her car, I think trying to organise funds over the phone, this woman stood by the car and said that if she made any attempt to start the vehicle she would open the door and attempt to get in.

The van driver they stopped, who was I suspect a bit of a scrote, vehicle had changed hands many times allegedly between him and his son, was clamped to prevent him driving off in an attempt to make him pay. This was despite the vehicle legitimately not being his, ie not the RK, and not insured by him, he was simply named driver, plus it was a tool of the trade so could not be seized according to rules.

So I think there is nothing to stop you just driving off once police have said their two words.

[Snowboy]

I think the problem isn't to do with the police helping.
I think the problem is to do with the private companies collecting the debt and the powers they have.

Because it's civil, debt collection is now a profit making industry.
It'll take a fundamental shift in law and policy to change that.

I actually have no problem with debtors being pursued and charged.
I do have a problem with innocent people getting hammered by balifs.

I would really like to see the true figures behind the speculation.
See how many innocent people are effected by the police assisted stops.
See how many innocent people are effected by balifs collecting parked cars.

[XCP]

9mm said:

So, if the Police stop the car and have no interest in it or the driver, is there anything to stop the driver simply refusing to engage with the bailiff and driving off?

Nothing at all as far as I can see. Just as you don't have to engage with the person if the police stop you for a DOT survey.

[9mm]

XCP said:

9mm said:

So, if the Police stop the car and have no interest in it or the driver, is there anything to stop the driver simply refusing to engage with the bailiff and driving off?

Nothing at all as far as I can see. Just as you don't have to engage with the person if the police stop you for a DOT survey.

That would seem to be the answer. The drivers featured in the programme all seem to have made the mistake of staying on the scene and getting involved in a debate, in one case even allowing the bailiff to attach a clamp.

[FiF]

9mm said:

XCP said:

9mm said:

So, if the Police stop the car and have no interest in it or the driver, is there anything to stop the driver simply refusing to engage with the bailiff and driving off?

Nothing at all as far as I can see. Just as you don't have to engage with the person if the police stop you for a DOT survey.

That would seem to be the answer. The drivers featured in the programme all seem to have made the mistake of staying on the scene and getting involved in a debate, in one case even allowing the bailiff to attach a clamp.

That will be solved simply by the bailiffs standing in front of your vehicle as soon as you come to a halt and staying there whilst the police do their stuff. Can't drive away then without risking a breach of the peace imo.

[hunton69]

jbsportstech said:

Ultimate irony was the enforcement and met police van parked on a bend on double yellows blocking the pavement.,

Very bad taste the met getting involved.

Edited by jbsportstech on Friday 18th April 07:41

And they were stopping the cars in a bus stop.

I'm surprised there wasn't a parking warden who could of dished out another ticket

[Variomatic]

FiF said:

That will be solved simply by the bailiffs standing in front of your vehicle as soon as you come to a halt and staying there whilst the police do their stuff. Can't drive away then without risking a breach of the peace imo.

Although, at that point, a genuinely impartial Police officer should insist on the bailif moving or charge them with the (criminal) offence of obstructing the highway.

[Hungry Pigeon]

IIRC they said on the program that the ANPR database belonged to the bailiffs.

To add my tuppenceworth, I think it's disgusting that the police pull folks over on a pretext and then hand them over to the bailiffs. I also think it's disgusting that it is apparently not an abuse of police powers for them to pull you over for sts and giggles. If it was my world they'd have to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed before they could stop you.

Someone whose car is taxed and insured, appears to be in good mechanical order, and is being driven without contravening traffic laws should not be stoppable unless there's a good reason (e.g. accident ahead, carriageway blocked etc.).

[9mm]

Variomatic said:

FiF said:

That will be solved simply by the bailiffs standing in front of your vehicle as soon as you come to a halt and staying there whilst the police do their stuff. Can't drive away then without risking a breach of the peace imo.

Although, at that point, a genuinely impartial Police officer should insist on the bailif moving or charge them with the (criminal) offence of obstructing the highway.

Well quite. I go back to the point about not engaging with them in any way. It's a shame we didn't see more footage of the activities featured in the programme so we could see exactly what role everyone involved had.

[Variomatic]

At a pinch you could even make a complaint about the police themselves under s.161 (4) of the Highways Act (Penalties for causing certain kinds of danger or annoyance):

[quote](4)If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, allows any filth, dirt, lime or other offensive matter or thing to run or flow on to a highway from any adjoining premises, he is guilty of an offence
[/quote]

I submit, M'lud, that the terms "filth" and "offensive matter" can both be applied perfectly correctly to persons of a bailif persuasion. By allowing them to encroach on the road in front of my client's vehicle, with the express purpose of causing him significant annoyance, Constable Savage was wilfully guilty of an offence under the above section.

[XCP]

Hungry Pigeon said:

IIRC they said on the program that the ANPR database belonged to the bailiffs.

To add my tuppenceworth, I think it's disgusting that the police pull folks over on a pretext and then hand them over to the bailiffs. I also think it's disgusting that it is apparently not an abuse of police powers for them to pull you over for sts and giggles. If it was my world they'd have to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed before they could stop you.

Someone whose car is taxed and insured, appears to be in good mechanical order, and is being driven without contravening traffic laws should not be stoppable unless there's a good reason (e.g. accident ahead, carriageway blocked etc.).

How would you establish who was driving, and whether they had permission, a licence and insurance etc ?

[Mojooo]

For the Bailiffs to justify having ANPR you would assume there must be a fairly largwe database of non paid fines.

[Snowboy]

Mojooo said:

For the Bailiffs to justify having ANPR you would assume there must be a fairly largwe database of non paid fines.

I don't know how much an anpr machine costs but I can't imagine it's more than a few hundred £.
It's just a camera and a computer.

Then it's just a case of loading the reg numbers with warrants against them and cruising round big car parks.

But, it must be worth the effort to be profitable.

[Ian Geary]

vonhosen said:

I don't believe the Police will just be stopping the vehicle for the bailiff.

I've seen Vonhosen called a few things over the years, but naive will be a new one to me.


Still, lets not forget that the justice system - and our wider economy - does require that when people incur a debt, they pay it.

Parking tickets going to the wrong address etc. are easily avoidable, as its a requirement to update your address with the DVLA when you move, and there's a well trodden path to contest dubious tickets. I would expect most adults to have sufficient grasp of their lives that they know if a public body is trying to collect money from them.

So whilst the actions of the Met do rankle in this instance, I expect that for 99% of people it's their own fault they're in that situation in the first place.


Ian